The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-25


and that Senator was known to be q friend OF
the administration. The Secretary of the Treas
ury-one of the brightest men in the administra-
tion-had lately sent communication to the
Senate reviewing the conduct Of Canada in this
matter, and had declared it to be simply
brutal" The Secretary of State had used
diplomatic language on the subject. but even he
had said. over and over again. that the acts OF
the Canadian authorities wore outrages, and
that the United States would demand restitu-
ton.
Mr. Gray quoted the Secretary of State as
characterizng, in note to Minister West, the
acts of the Canadian authorities as inhospitable
and inhum1n.
Mr. Frye added that the American minister to
England Mr. Phelpsl had made unexcep-
tional. a clear, complete, and, to MIN, an
tirelv satisfactory statement of the whole case
This law, he said, had power in it. He believed
that the President had at heart the honor and
dignity Of the great Republic over which he pre-
sided He believed that the President was in
favor of protecting the rights of every American
citizen. He believed that he was an honest
man. and if the law passed the power
which it would put into his hands would be
used for the protection of American rights.
Mr. ingalls, said that one object which he had
in view had been accomplished. He had desired
to ascertain, if possible, the purpose and inten-
ton of the committee on foreign relations in
the proposed legislation. He had been in doubt
whether it was intended to remit the subject to
tended as declaring to Great Britain that its
course, il persisted in. would resutin war. He un-
derstood from the statement of the Senator from
Maine Mr. Fryel. speaking for the committee
as he MIR. Ingalls, supposed he did, that if this
bill became law, it was declaration to Great
Britain that she would continue these practices
at her peril, and that il they were persisted in
they must be enforced by war. The statement
OF facts made by the Senator from Maine con-
stituted casus belli under the law Of nations.
The continuance of amicable intercourse, under
such circumstances, would be impossible. He
had, therefore, desired to know whether the
purpose of the bill was to invite diplomacy or to
announce to Great Britain that such proceedings
had been carried to the extremity and limit of
peaceable solution. The voice was the voice of
Canada, but the hand was the hand of Great
Britain
Nr Edmunds asked Mr. ingalls, whether he
mean, to say that any act which the people
of tn: United States might consider n viola
ton of a treaty was necessarily casus beli
Mr.. Ingalls, mean to say that declared, and
avowed, and continued violation of treaty OBJ
legations, or OF international law, are a casus
belli.
Mr. Edmunds.It does not necessarily follow
that every breach OF treaty Is to be followed by
Mr.. Ingalls-How about a continuous, DELHI
crate wllful violation of treaty.
Mr. Edmunds-That is different thing.
Mr. Ingalls-That is this case. This trouble
has got to be settled so far as this bill Is con-
cerned, either by diplomacy or by blood
Mr. Edmunds-The question here is not a
question of war, but is a question of countervai-
ing regulations. which all nations have resorted
to long before war; and which usually never
come to war.
Mr.. Ingalls-The Senator from Vermont
states that the question in controversy between
the two countries is merely the Interpretation
or construction of tine treaty of 1878.
Mr.. Edmunds-No; dc not say that
Mr. Ingalls, understood the Senator to say it.
England has always been a rufian, coward
and bully among the nations of the earth, in
solent to the weak, tyrannical to the feeble, and
cringing and obsequious to the strong Her
history for centuries has been a record of crime
against the human race in Ireland, in Scotland,
in Wales, against the Roman Catholics, against
the Beers of South Africa. against the Hindoos
and the Chinese. Wherever there has been a
feeble, a weak q helpless nation, Great Britain
y has been there for the purpose of rapacity. and
plumber and conquest. England bears good
will to this country. The memory of two de-
feats rankics, | dare say. in the breasts Of
Englishmen When say that Great Britain is
not friendly to this country. mean that the
ruling classes are unfriendly to this country.
Her course has been always one of wrong,
insoence and outrage England cheated the
South with false hopes of recognition, and in
iured the North by violations of neutrality.
Her course in the treaty CT Washington was
actuated solely by a fear Of the consequences to
that country in the next war in which she mic ht
be engaged if she permitted the principle which
she established to stand undenied / believe
that there is no special reciprocity of good will
on the part Of America towards England There
are few Americans who do not regret Waterloo
There are few Americans who do not recognize
the fact that the course of England towards
this country has been one of insolence
and suspicion, and outrage from the
beginning Of national existence
If reed this transaction Alright. there is NJ
purposs on the part of Great Britain to secure
peaceful solution. pacific Interpretation of the
doubtful provisions of the treaty of 1918, bu
rather deliberate purpose so far to fomen
the irritation and discomfort between Canada
and the United States as to prevent that pacif
cation in the immediate future which would b.
inevitable If both peoples we're left to the opera
ton of the natural laws of trade and society.
see very plainly what the purpose of Grea
Britain3zas been in the matter She desires t.
render %s5fh possible for free, friendly, reciprocal
relations political and otherwise, to exist be
tween Canada and the United States. There
fore, was glad to hear of the Interpretation
placed on the proposed legislation by the Sena
tor from Maine Mr.. Freyl, that, so far as he il
concerned, it is to be declaration to Grea
Britan-recogniZing her agency and her powe
in the matter--that she persist further at he
peril.
Mr. Hoar declared it to be his opinion that thu
proceedings of the Canadian authorities in thi
matter were undertaken for the purpose OF in
terfering with a matter which is purely of on
own concern. 1t was not that Canada nigh
catch fish without molestaton; it was that sh
might sell fish without the interference of thu
American tariff police. He regarded this attemp
by foreign power to enforce upon us, agains
our will, a certain domestic policy. as one of thu
most emphatic and fragrant acts of hostility tina
could be committed short Of actual war. H
did not understand. however, with the Senate
from Kansas, that the object Of this measur
WAS to bring about either war or further diplo
macy 1t was merely saying to the British GOV
ernment and the Dominion of Canada that g
long as they attempted to interfere with our dc
nestle arrangements in this way. so long the
should not be permitted to cell their fish or othe
products in the American markets at all. He de
elared that so far from this being wariik
measure, it was a measure to prevent war.
Congress We re to declnre-as it had the right I
declare-that the British government had vic
lated the treaty Of 1918, that that was casu
bell and that it was the duty of Congress so
treat il. it would set the two countries by tn